Talk:James Tabor

Dr. Tabor and Herbert W. Armstrong and Ernest L. Martin THIS MATERIAL DOES NOT BELONG HERE BUT IN A PERSONAL WEBLOG.

Dr. Tabor has a very controversial background and in light of his recent appearance on the Discovery Channel with Ted Koppel concerning the Tomb of Jesus, Wikipedia should present his entire CV and not selected portions that do not reflect this controversy, otherwise the article drifts from NPOV to public relations puffery. Exambassador 20:55, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, however extremist views and polemic as well as vandalism will be removed. Also, please create a username and sign your entries. Fair and square 17:10, 5 March 2007 (UTC)Fair and Square

The anonymous user did not cite references, thus the text will be removed until references are cited, given the controversial nature.Reverend Mommy 19:02, 5 March 2007 (UTC)candlemb

Dr. Tabor left the faculty of Ambassador College and employment by Herbert W. Armstrong's Worldwide Church of God during the first wave of departures after 1972. In February of 1972 Herbert W. Armstrong's Church had published many articles to show that it would depart for Petra, Jordan as a Place of Safety prior to the Tribulation that was supposed to take place shortly afterwards. Armstrong did not believe in the Rapture but in a physical protection. His 1956 booklet called 1975 in Prophecy! illustrated his timeline. Dr. Tabor was a part of the educational arm that supported these beliefs. Many who departed went to other colleges and universities and some like such as Dr. Robert Kuhn joined Ambassador College and helped to create the Ambassador International Cultural Foundation. Others such as Dr. Ernest L. Martin formed other organizations that independently picked up where they had left off with Armstrong. Martin was the person who began the Ambassador College digs in Jerusalem in conjunction with Hebrew University beginning in the 1960s. These digs continued until Armstrong's death in 1986 and they covered the period of James Cameron's current film. In other words Dr. Tabor brought with him his prior knowledge of Armstrong's undertakings in Jerusalem and Martin's ongoing interest. The Internet has many links showing that Dr. Tabor maintained his contact with many former Armstrong members. Exambassador 20:55, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

So what? Kornbelt888 (talk) 02:22, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I'm a newbie

Please take the time to reference the article on James Tabor, as stating that it is on the internet is not really sufficient for citing of references, especially on a controversial topic. Also, you misspelled controversial. This does not lend your editing credibility. Please look at the article, "The Five Pillars of Wikipedia."

Thanks.

Or rather, I've had the account for a while but never had anything on either the talk pages or the user page. I'm sorry that my previous posting came across as harsh -- it was not intended that way.

I'm just confused and honestly want to understand why you feel so passionately about this topic. From my perspective, I see his credentials from University of Chicago and know that U of C is very rigorous and the PhD is very difficult. (I say this from the perspective of a PhD student.) It appears from his statements and the websites surrounding his University webpage at UNC, that he is currently spouting the standard party line of the SBL.

I just want to know what your perspective is.

Thanks, Reverend Mommy 23:11, 5 March 2007 (UTC)candlemb

I moved the discussion to your page in order to keep the conversation in one place. Exambassador 03:57, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Because the entire discussion has now been moved here I have also moved the originating discussion here and placed it within context. Exambassador 14:54, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Dr. Tabor in his own words about Ambassador College

• The following extract is cited here:

"....I was raised in the Church of Christ and graduated from Abilene Christian University in 1966 with a B.A. in Greek and biblical studies. I had begun to listen to GTA/HWA back in high school and followed them with some interest through college. After graduation I spent a year in Europe in the mission field, working with Christian believers behind the Iron Curtain (Yugoslavia, Poland, Russia), smuggling in Bibles and literature. I returned to the States in 1967 and was determined to go out to Ambassador College to investigate things there firsthand. Over the years I had continued to study the Bible, and more and more had concluded that the Armstrongs had something nearer the truth than my own background of the Church of Christ. I was baptized (2nd time) by Tony Hammer around Passover, 1968 and that fall entered AC, Pasadena. I spent two years there, 1968-70, and divided my time three ways: teaching the first Hebrew and Greek classes (David Albert was in my Hebrew class) at AC; getting a second B.A. in Theology from AC; and going to Pepperdine University to get an M.A. Basically my experiences at AC were positive. I was never mistreated in any way, and left voluntarily in 1970 with no hard feelings or regrets. Remember, this was in 1970, before all the disruptions of the '70s, and in the absolute heyday of the WCG. I left because I could plainly see that those people were not open-minded seekers of God's truth." (Hightlighting added for emphasis)

Exambassador 21:47, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

The References probably need to be on the article page? and I like the text on this page better than on the article page - it's more factual and informative. I don't understand why it's "Controversial" background, too. And controversial is misspelled. Fair and square 22:01, 5 March 2007 (UTC) fair_and_square

The typo has disappeared (I am sure that you know the difference between a typographical error and a spelling mistake), and the necessary information added to the article. It is a pity this did not exist when Ted Koppel sat down to discuss this topic. It might have shed a little more light on matters all round. Exambassador 22:23, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I've rmeoved the highlighting since I feel Dr Tabor's words should speak for themselves. IMO the most important sentence was the final one -- but let the reader decide. --Michael C. Price ^talk 09:19, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Seeing as much of the material in the quote was summarised in the background section I have removed the quote and moved the link. --Michael C. Price ^talk 20:10, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Correspondence from Dr. Tabor

I have corresponded with Dr. Tabor -- the fact that two years teaching experience and opinions that he held when he was in his 20's is how he is being cast now. I would have to concur. He supplied me with his complete CV and here is the suggested copy:

James D. Tabor is Chair of the Department of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte where he has taught since 1989. He previously held positions at the University of Notre Dame (1979-85) and the College of William and Mary (1985-89). His undergraduate and M.A. degrees were in Biblical Languages (Pepperdine University), and his Ph.D. is from the University of Chicago in the area of Biblical Studies, with an emphasis on Christian Origins and ancient Judaism, including the Dead Sea Scrolls, John the Baptist, Jesus, James, and Paul.

Tabor was born in Texas but lived all over the world as the son of an Air Force officer. He was raised in the Churches of Christ and attended Abilene Christian University where he earned his B.A. degree in Greek and Bible. While earning his M.A. from Pepperdine University he taught Greek and Hebrew for two years at Ambassador College, founded by Herbert W. Armstrong, founder and president of the Worldwide Church of God. He left organized religions in the 1970s and earned his Ph.D. at the University of Chicago in 1971 in New Testament and Early Christian Literature.

His first book was a study of the mysticism of the apostle Paul titled Things Unutterable (1986), based on his University of Chicago dissertation. The Journal of Religion named it one of the ten best scholarly studies on Paul of the 1980s. Tabor then turned to an analysis of attitudes toward religious suicide and martyrdom in the ancient world, the results of which appeared as A Noble Death, published by HarperSanFrancisco in 1992 (co-authored with Arthur Droge). Although the book is centered on the history of such ideas in antiquity, the results of this research have had immediate application in our current discussion of the ethics of volunteer death and assisted suicide. Prof. Tabor's book has been used as a standard by ethicists, lawyers, and physicians who are participating in the current debate. It received an extensive essay review in the Christian Century. Tabor has also published a wide variety of scholarly and more popular articles in books, journals, and magazines.

His current research involves the newly released Dead Sea Scrolls and he has combined extensive field work with his textual research: the 3rd Judean Desert Expedition in which radar ground scan methods were used at Qumran; survey of Wadi el-Yabis (Wadi Cherith) in Jordan, 1992 & 1996; field research at Masada in 1994; New Qumran excavations, January 1996; In 1996, 1999, and 2000 he participated in the archaeological excavations at Sepphoris, near Nazareth in the Galilee, in the ongoing efforts directed by Prof. James Strange of the University of South Florida, as well as survey and radar ground scan efforts at Christian Mt. Zion in Jerusalem in 1995 & 1997, also with Prof. Strange. Most recently he has excavated with Shimon Gibson at a newly discovered cave in the Ein Kerem area, outside Jerusalem, at Suba (2000, 2001) which appears to contain primitive Jewish-Christian art related to John the Baptist. This latter discovery has drawn international attention including a cover Newsweek story, a two-hour documentary on the History Channel, articles in the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, and the Associated Press (carried by over 200 papers), as well as dozens of television outlets including CNN, Disney, Discovery, and all the major networks (ABC, NBC, CBS, FOX). During the third season of this effort Tabor and Gibson were also the principals involved in the accidental discovery of the only 1st century Jewish burial shroud ever found in Jerusalem in a looted Herodian tomb, now subject of a one hour documentary that has aired The Learning Channel.

Dr. Tabor is often consulted by the national media (e.g., quoted or appeared in/on Time, Newsweek, USNews, NYTimes, LATimes, WashPost, Wall St. Journal, Harpers, AP, NBC, CBS, ABC, FOX, PBS Frontline, A&E (TV & Radio) particularly in connection with the Dead Sea Scrolls, modern apocalypticism and millennialism, and more recently, regarding the 1993 Waco disaster. Tabor often appears in national television specials dealing with Jesus and early Christianity, archaeology, and the Dead Sea Scrolls. He has been featured on A&E, the History Channel, Discovery, and PBS in the United States and the BBC and Channel Two in the United Kingdom, as well as various outlets in Canada.

In 1995, he published Why Waco? Cults and the Battle for Religious Freedom in America (University of California Press), which he co-authored with Eugene Gallagher, and which was one of the first books to explore what had actually happened in Waco, Texas. Harper's magazine published a lengthy excerpt (July, 1995). In dealing with the Waco crisis, both during and after the tragedy, Tabor was able to make direct use of his academic specialties in ancient apocalypticism and messianism, religious martyrdom and suicide, and the use of Biblical prophetic texts as applied to the modern situation involving the Branch Davidians. In 1995 he testified before Congress as an expert witness on Waco and has urged both government officials and media spokespersons to drop the use of the prejudicial label "cult," and approach such new religious groups with a combination of critical evaluation and a sympathetic attempt to enter the world view of those involved. Tabor serves as Chief Editor of the Original Bible Project, an effort to produce a historical-linguistic translation of the Bible with notes. Tabor has just completed an edited volume with Prof. Eugene Gallagher, Crossing the Bounds: Humanity and Divinity in Late Antiquity (E.J. Brill, 2006) and is currently finishing his newest book, The Jesus Dynasty: A New Historical Investigation of Jesus, His Royal Family, and the Birth of Christianity.

In 2006 Tabor published a controversial book titled The Jesus Dynasty that interprets Jesus as an apocalyptic Messiah whose family founded a royal dynasty in the days before the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD. He included archaeological data as well as textual interpretations of biblical texts, the Dead Sea Scrolls, and ancient historical sources. The form of Christianity that grew out of this movement, led by the apostle Paul, was, according to Tabor, a decisive break with the original teachings of Jesus.

More recently Tabor has been involved in research on a tomb found in 1980 in Jerusalem in the area of east Talpiot. It contained ossuaries with the names Jesus son of Joseph, two Marys, a Joseph, a Matthew, and a Jude son of Jesus. In his book Tabor had discussed the possibilities that this tomb might be linked to Jesus of Nazareth and his family. He was a consultant for the film, "The Lost Tomb of Jesus" produced by James Cameron and Simcha Jacobovici and shown worldwide in March, 2007. Tabor is working on his own formal publication of the results of his three years of research on this tomb.

I fixed a straying paragraph in the post above which is not signed. Is this a response in context or a new contribution? Identity would be helpful. Exambassador 04:03, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment on the copy above. According to Dr. Tabor himself he did not just teach at Ambassador College, he was a listener to both Herbert W. and Garner Ted Armstrong on The World Tomorrow radio program which caused him to leave the Church of Christ because he said, Armstrong was teaching "the truth" and this caused him to become a baptised member of the Worldwide Church of God and attend Ambassador College as a student where he earned a second undergraduate degree in theology. His quoted letter is but an extract (you can read the rest by following the link) and it is clear from numerous Internet Web sites that he has maintained contact with persons who were once affiliated with Armstrong.

(Dr. Arnold being but one example. At Waco it was Dr. Arnold who was on the air daily over one Texas radio station in particular, where he was urging that his approach concerning Koresh should be followed. In that respect both Dr. Arnold and Dr. Tabor shared the same interests.)

This moves us from the 1970s to the 1980s and there are other links that bring us to today with the "Tomb of Jesus". No doubt other connections will surface in this matter since Dr. Martin and Hebrew University had a working relationship and Armstrong himself had a constant relationship with various Prime Ministers of Israel and he received an award as a new "David slaying Golliath" from the long term mayor of Jerusalem (who recently died.) This is all rather strange. Exambassador 04:19, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome!

Now what do we have here? Dr. Tabor or his friend? It would seem that you have just appeared and received a welcome and then did the same for me. As for the typo we are all guilty of that from time to time and it has nothing to do with credibility. However, the links are now there because in his own words Dr.Tabor freely admits how he listed to Garner Ted, became a member of the Worldwide Church of God and attended Ambassador College. Credibility? I think that Dr. Tabor may also be lacking just that. Its a pity that Ted Koppel had not read Tabor's true CV before he began talking to him last night. Exambassador 21:59, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm a newbie

Indeed it's true, I'm pretty new around here -- rather, I've had the account for a while but have never really done anything with it. I'm sorry my comments hit you the wrong way. Offense was not intended. As a Methodist, I tend to lead with grace rather than judgment. He was COG and he was associated with Ambassador College. He is not any longer, but on the Faculty of a well-respected university. Thus I would like think that perhaps he has some amount of scholarship. He seemed pretty moderate last night.

And I am

Hi again. No offense taken. Sometimes I find that the misspelling line is used to deflect away from the issue at hand. I type content knowing that others on Wikipedia love to come along with their bots and fix things. So I suppose I don't spent time to check in the way that I would if I was in the middle of writing an article for publication by an academic journal. When it comes to plain messages I tend to become even more sloppy since I try to express myself first and worry about presentation later. Anyway, back to your question.

Well the problem with the WCG and AC is that it was a conditioning machine. It sucked in a variety of people, some smart, some not so smart and some who obviously qualified for the management of Mensa. HWA was an adman who had been a Quaker and who morphed into a hodge-podge of beliefs that were all wrapped up in prophecy illustrated by Basil Wolverton. The day came when all of this fell apart and then something very strange took place. While the organization looked the same it had really split into two factions: one hewing to quotes from the Bible and the other trying to become all things to all people that sounded Buddhist, looked cultural and which had an attorney guiding it who belonged to a synagogue.

Ted Armstrong was just a playboy who needed a church to gain access to easy money, but he also had his followers and one of them was another extremely well educated man who happened to attend the same synagogue.

Into this mixture add Dr. Tabor (and a lot of others just like him who also come with valid credentials.)

The problem is that this strange HWA hybrid created a challenge to either cut and run and get out of the religion business, or try to reinvent the religion business. Note that Dr. Tabor came from a reasonably mainstream church background, certainly had the qualifications to attend accredited universities, complete their coursework and of course obtain a PhD. But what else? Well we learn from his own words that he not only listened to HWA/GTA, but that he became convinced that they had the "truth" that he was seeking. So he joined them, became educated by them and assisted with the education of others. This tale is not unique because others have recited the same biographical tale. Once one leaves the mainstream because of conviction that the "truth" is elsewhere, how does one go back to that which they scorned because they had found it to be untrue? HWA prided himself on asking the same question over and over again: where would you go if you left (me)?

Now jump ahead to the Discovery Channel program and we are once more in the field of Ambassador College and Dr. Ernest L. Martin, etc., etc. Not only that but Dr. Tabor has maintained his contacts with these people. He also became involved with Dr. Arnold - who was also no stranger to Ambassador and the WCG and who obtained his PhD from Rice. That was at the time of David Koresh and all of that nonsense. There are many Tabors and Arnolds out there with similar stories to tell.

It would therefore have been extremely useful to both Ted Koppel and the producers of the Discovery Channel program, if they had been aware of Dr. Tabor's complete CV.

I am not advocating any conclusion by the addition of this information, because like Wikipedia I am NPOV, but I like to see all sides of an issue before I reach a conclusion. Hopefully then, others who are prompted to look up Dr. Tabor will see his words of explanation together with the addded links that will assist readers in making sense of what he has written when they follow the various links and read the addtional material for themselves. What readers do with this knowledge is up to them. The producer of the Discovery Channel program said that he hoped that he had commenced a discussion. Hopefully then, this information has added to that discussion. The conclusions reached must be individually obtained.

Sorry that this is a rather long-winded reply, but I wanted to answer your question properly. May I then ask you why you are interested in this matter? (God! I hope that I have left a trail of typos.) (Joking, just joking.) Exambassador 23:15, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the Reply

Sounds like you know a lot about the history of the WCG! I've never really encountered any of these people, but I am basing my opinion on who Dr. Tabor appear to be NOW.

1) We've all done things we regret later. (especially hairstyles....) 2) He left the WCG and became, what some would call, apostate. 3) He has admitted that he's drifting back to an organized religion. 4) His credentials are good enough to head the department at UNC and get a PhD from Chicago. 5) His websites are great resources for religion students, of any ilk. 6) His book about Waco was well written, balanced and almost pastoral in tone -- he seems to be striving for understanding, given his research interests. 7) Because I have been the scholar with the unpopular opinion before, I always defend the underdog. 8) I am friends with a lot of people who don't agree with my opinions -- perhaps I'm a pastor because I see people as People first.

I try to hit a media via -- the Tomb of Jesus stuff was not "real science" or "real scholarship" -- nor did they portray it being that. It was to be "journalism" of the type Discovery has been doing for years. I have attended both Candler (the southern bastion of liberal thought) and Erskine (the conservative of the conservatives) -- and sometimes I've been on both campuses within the same week. At Cander, I'm the conservative Republican -- at Erskine, I'm the liberal Democrat; when in reality I'm a moderate Liberatarian.

How come none of that information is on the World Wide Church of God article or the Armstrong article? Reverend Mommy 01:16, 7 March 2007 (UTC)candlemb

I moved your answer here so that I could reply (I was getting dizzy.) By the way, who left the lengthy note on the discussion page? It also has a format problem for some reason.

To answer your last part, since the article is about Dr. Tabor and the comments added were from Dr. Tabor I don't think that they belong anywhere else and they would be meaningless in a general article such as the one you mentioned.

With reference to Waco, it is interesting that he Dr. Tabor contact with Dr. Arnold who also attended Ambassador College. But in light of the current subject matter regarding the Tomb and Dr. Martin's interest in Jerusalem "digs' (also connected to Ambassador College) and his controversial interpretation of findings as a result of his involvement in Jersusalem and with Hebrew University, I find it all rather curious and beyond credibility to strike it all off as mere "coincidence".

A pattern appears to be forming and this pattern is both controversial and beyond the mainstream of academic attention. As for credentials I believe that David Koresh died in that dreadful fire with a partner who also had academic credentials and who one would have thought would have known better (as "they" say.)

I am standing on the sideline watching someone trying to grab my attention and the attention of millions of viewers, and I am wondering how many more times the spirit of HWA will attempt to take control of the media. Exambassador 03:55, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

James Tabor

You started a page on James Tabor a while back. Could you come over and look at the talk page and weigh in on the discussion. Thanks. Reverend Mommy 03:16, 7 March 2007 (UTC)candlemb

Sorry but I'm not interested in getting involved in this discussion. --Loremaster 04:14, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I've never talked to another user so I'm unsure if I'm using the right thing, but I'm trying to reply to your message. I looked at the James Tabor page but I am unsure what you want me to look at or do in particular. I did notice that someone had incorrectly linked something on the page. Tabor is not the "Chair of the Department of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina". He is the Chair at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte. Those are two very different entities. That is the only thing I found that I objected to. I can't really make any further contributions because I know very little about Tabor. If I can help you in any other way, let me know.Charlottedude 06:22, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Why not include both?

The copy from Dr. Tabor and your objections to his credibility? I'll go ahead and combine the two with a heading something like "Background and Involvement with Church of God" Reverend Mommy 13:34, 7 March 2007 (UTC)candlemb

I see that you moved all of the discussion here, good idea, I followed your lead. Your question about "your objections" is not directed towards anyone in particular, but since we are the only two who have any interest at all in this article (everyone else keeps bowing out), let me state quite clearly that I am not "objecting to his credibility". I am attempting to keep this article NPOV in order to avoid objections to the credibility of this Wikipedia article. If the article appears to be self-promotion it will fail the Wikipedia standards test. This article needs to be a balanced presentation. Quite frankly I cannot see why Dr. Tabor's own words, his explanation of his own background, are not satisfactory. I have absolutely no objections to what Dr. Tabor wrote in order to explain his background because it does put things in a concise form and reflects the development of his life and his thought patterns. I have not added anything about Koresh, but if the article starts to tilt again by the inclusion of material on Koresh, then it needs to be balanced by showing his relationship to others who came from a similar background as Dr. Tabor. Let's keep this article NPOV and not diminish balanced material that even Dr. Tabor endorses, since he wrote it! Exambassador 15:07, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I have reverted

and removed the caveat placed on the page earlier because the information I added was not obtained from James Tabor but from University of NC, Charlotte. Reverend Mommy 23:01, 18 March 2007 (UTC)candlemb

Even if it were from Tabor's CV it would for anyone who contested it to provide an alternative sourced history, instead of adding weasel words and poisoning the well. --Michael C. Price ^talk 00:13, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Michael, I concur. Reverend Mommy 01:20, 19 March 2007 (UTC)candlemb

I have rearranged

I have added a few more links and rearranged the page. I don't know what that blockquote is all about except that someone is bringing up controversial stuff from 30 years ago to try to discredit Dr. Tabor's work today. This seems to be the worse sort of an Ad hominem argument. I would like to remove it entirely, as I don't think that kind of personal reflection stuff belongs in an encyclopedia entry. Reverend Mommy 14:45, 19 March 2007 (UTC)candlemb

I have removed it - the link remains - since much of it was already paraphrased elsewhere. --Michael C. Price ^talk 20:13, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I am concerned

I am concerned that Reverend Mommy misunderstands the idea of NPOV and is attempting to remove anything that might seem at all critical from this entry. I certainly can't understand why an encyclopedia entry should not have 30 year old biographical stuff. And, given that James Tabor is not exactly mainstream even now in some of his ideas, it might even be relevant to his ideas today, although the entry if meant to be biographical should cover the past as well.

Dougweller 18:44, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with your statement about the NPOV. NPOV does not advocate zero opinion, but a fair and balanced opinion. We must strive to present the information accurately and within context. What I have been removing is 1) the comments that condemn Dr. Tabor on basis of the book of Acts and 2) a contorted couple of paragraphs which did not make sense within the context of the article. I asked several times for the author of that opinion to tell me what he was trying to say, with no response. I would whole-heartedly encourage you to re-write whatever you wish as long as you present it fairly and cite reliable sources. I don't think that an extract like this expresses that clearly. "30 year old biography stuff" is entirely appropriate, but I don't understand the context here, nor would anyone else not not familiar with the issue. I believe you have a dedicated interest in discrediting Dr. Tabor, as your stated opinions on your website stand in opposition to his, thus I don't think you have perspective to say what is NPOV. I don't have a dog in the fight and see the repeated arguments "but he's a bad person!" to lack validity. Tell me WHY it lacks validity. Reverend Mommy 19:44, 21 March 2007 (UTC)candlemb

How can disagreeing with James Tabor mean I can't say what is NPOV? My impression is reinforced by your reply that 'reliable sources' for you will never be critical to James Tabor. Dougweller 20:33, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

removed book

• Biblical Greek: Living Biblical Greek for Everyone (with R. Buth), 2003, ISBN 1582149313

this book was written by Randall Buth alone, Amazon has it attributed incorrectly. (Information via lists.ibiblio.org)Reverend Mommy 13:35, 29 March 2007 (UTC)candlemb

also

The link the Mr. Weller added a few days ago, when compared to his own site and when comparison is made of the profile to his own profile on his site is made a striking similarity emerges and causes me to wonder if Mr. Weller is the author of both sites and if the link is self-referential. Just hazarding a guess. Reverend Mommy 13:35, 29 March 2007 (UTC)candlemb

I'd appreciate it if you withdraw your guess as it's completely wrong. I'd never heard of the sites I've posted until a few weeks ago. And I have no idea what you mean by 'profile'. I will also point out that I use my real name.Dougweller 19:46, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I retract. I re-read that site and yours and I agree that they do not resemble as much as I thought. That site is WEIRD. Reverend Mommy 20:13, 29 March 2007 (UTC)candlemb

Not a Fan Site

This is not meant to be a fan site. I'm not happy with people deleting links they don't like because they are critical of James Tabor. I don't think he'd be happy with this either. I've restored the last one, but if this continues, what should I do? Delete the rest of the links is tempting but destructive. Dougweller 12:51, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Pussy Footing

I am reading "The Jesus Dynasty" at the moment so would like to know exactly what is controversial about Prof. Tabor? These names above mean nothing to non-americans. Can you please explain? Mike0001 (talk) 14:01, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

What names? You should read Peerbolt's review. From his support of Barry Fell's bizarre claims that Egyptians, Phoenicians, Celts, etc traversed North America to his support of the 'Jesus Tomb', he's been controversial. Dougweller (talk) 22:09, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Dr Fell

I have removed the paragraph about Dr Fell, which seems to be an WP:OR attempt to smear Tabor by association. A clear violation of WP:BLP as per this talk page header. -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 18:30, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

But it's Tabor who associated himself with Fell, so how is it a BLP violation? Dougweller (talk) 18:33, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Took it to WP:BLPN for wider opinions. Dougweller (talk) 18:37, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

How exactly is it a BLP violation, Michael? How is it original research? I don't see it. I could see some rewording of the removed paragraph, e.g., taking out some of the descriptions of who Fell is and what he does (that seems to be original research AND unnecessary), but, otherwise, it simply seems to report on something Tabor wrote that was buttressed by something Fell wrote.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:59, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

All Tabor did was comment in passing on one of Fell's claims. Why is it deemed necessary for Fell to be described as a pseudoscientist? Does any source that mentions Tabor and Fell jointly make that linkage? -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 22:28, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. So, this is how I would reword the paragraph to eliminate the "smear" (and I cleaned up a little at the same time):

In 1997 he wrote in the United Israel Bulletin (Vol. 52, Summer 1997, pp. 1–3) that he is "tentatively convinced that the Los Lunas inscription offers solid evidence that ancient Israelites explored and settled in the New World in the centuries before the Common Era. Whether we can precisely date this encampment, based on Mr. Deal's astronomical evidence, remains in discussion. However, I have little doubt, nor does Dr. Gordon (Cyrus Gordon), who is one of the world experts on ancient inscriptions, that the text itself is authentic and was written sometime B.C.E. Beyond this we can not go at this point in time. What is needed is a rigorous archaeological examination of the whole mountain and its human artifacts." He also wrote "However, when the Los Lunas inscription is placed in the wider context of an abundant amount of evidence, such as that presented by Dr. Fell (Barry Fell), that ancient Mediterranean peoples did visit the New World, it becomes not only plausible but perhaps the only logical explanation for the existence of this text." Tabor states that the "historical and archaeological evidence" for "ancient Mediterranean peoples" to have travelled to the New World sometime BCE "is quite impressive. It has been well documented by Barry Fell in his major study, America B.C."

In my view, what's left does not hurt Tabor at all. There are still some things that might need tidying. I don't like parenthetical citations. They should be inline citations. I'm not sure if the quotes have to be so long, either. But those things can be remedied while still retaining the material.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:41, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Certainly a better version (although I have the same quibbles as outlined by Bbb23). Additionally, though, why do we need it at all? The other entries in the Works and Publications section are much more notable or relevant, being either seminal, award-winning or very notable books, whereas this is just a comment in a journal. Is there any evidence that this comment has attracted significant (or any?) secondary coverage? I hesitate to invoke WP:UNDUE, but it may be relevant. -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 05:46, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Besides some fringe publications, in http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/search?index=books&linkCode=qs&keywords=0899972586 (Rock-Art in the Southwest) I find "ANCIENT HEBREW INSCRIPTION IN NEW MEXICO web: http://www.unitedisrael.org/loslunas.html Presented by United Israel, the Los Lunas (New Mexico) decalogue stone is discussed by lames D. Tabor; a photograph is included. The information offered at this site is questioned by most authorities, but it presents information on a well known "outlier." Loads of hits on the web, it seems important to LDS adherents, this professor [1] mentions it in a paper and links to it from his website. Dougweller (talk) 10:35, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Jonathan Wallace reinserted the material but in dramatically reduced form. I'm not sure how everyone feels about it or if Jonathan was following this discussion. Jonathan is pretty meticulous, but I'll leave a talkback template so he can comment here.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:28, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up (and the "meticulous"). I apologize for not checking here for a discussion before acting; I was relying on the BLPN thread. Generally, it appears that there is a mysterious stone with actual Hebrew, but which cannot be accurately dated (stone can, but inscription can't) and some real professors pro and contra. I think its worth a mention. I looked for reliable third party sources to add saying something like "Tabor is mistaken" but didn't find any in a brief search. If we get too much into the "stone is a hoax, stone is genuine" distinction, rather than simply wiki-linking to the article, it becomes a WP:COATRACK. I don't feel strongly the material must be in Dr. Tabor's article, but generally agree with Doug Weller and BBB23 it is notable and interesting. Jonathanwallace (talk) 14:44, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

The rewrite looks good to me. Thanks. -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 19:38, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Tone of the Article

The tone of this article seems completely inappropriate. It sounds like it was written by his student. At the least it has a sort of fawning tone. Whole Wheat Ιγνάτιος (talk) 20:14, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Better now? Dougweller (talk) 21:40, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Quite a bit, well done. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:56, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

I concur! Fantastic job. Whole Wheat Ιγνάτιος (talk) 22:50, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

get of your keister and get to work

321- GO 174.240.67.36 (talk) 00:38, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Massada skeletons and cave

Tabor wrote and discussed online (there is even a youtube video) the problems with the reports about the skeletons. see here

It is obvious that Yadin's lack of exact reports, change of tone, and contradicting evidence are all due to the fight with the Jewish religious authorities who wished the skeletons buried in an official Jewish burial. Tabor notes that it is not clear where the original skeletons are today, or where those that were buried are found today.

He was not able to find a source for the actual finding. But here is one (with 15 skeletons mentioned): in commentary magazine by Daniel Gavron dated Friday, October 18, 1963 פשוט pashute ♫ (talk) 13:00, 6 July 2023 (UTC)